Akos
The 500mm is such a sharp lens that you get used to a certain level of quality.
With a 1.4x I don't really notice the difference, whereas with a 2x I do notice
a difference in quality. Nothing to do with technique. I also have reasonable
shots with stacked converters but you could never say they are as sharp as the
500mm by itself.
Obviously its easy to make these images look sharp when resizing for web forums
and adding sharpening etc, but at 100% i personally find a difference.
Cheers
Dave
On 26/11/2010, at 7:43 AM, Ákos Lumnitzer wrote:
David
I have to disagree about the Canon EF 2x. Maybe you have a bad copy or I have a
fabulous one. Under the right circumstances and using solid technique I most
certainly get more than good enough quality images and I don't even use a
500/4L yet. Even stacking a 1.4x and a 2x I can get very good results (hand
holding!). Just food for thought. I admit, I am no pixel peeper, but certainly
have a very good grasp of this funny thing called photography and professional
nature photographers world-wide like what I am capable of producing. :) What
my point is that there are many factors to consider with converters; light,
lens, technique, converter quality (individuals most likely differ) and so on.
I won't even touch the subject of cropping (excessively) as many now do because
they have 15+ megapixel cameras.
respectfully yours
Akos
(just an amateur in many worlds) :)
==============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
=============================
|
